GIGO Global Warming

Rule #1 for Computer Data: Garbage In = Garbage Out

Computer models attempt to recreate the real world inside their electronic brains by simulating observed forces which affect inputs by producing outputs. They do this with the hope that if they accurately describe how the real world works, they can be used to understand it better, and in particular to predict future events before they happen.  

In systems theory, there are four parts to a model:  Inputs, the “black box” system itself, outputs, and a feedback loop in which the current outputs affect and modify the next inputs.

For example, in attempting to model climate effects on global temperatures a century from now, a computer program is written to take in all the known driving inputs to the climate.  Next, programmers write computer algorithms to produce the predicted output, in this case, the temperature change.

Thinking observers – and all computer programmers aged 12 and up – will immediately see how easily this can all go so horribly wrong.  Especially if there is a political agenda in the minds of the computer programmers.

First, as the military likes to say, it’s all GIGO, or garbage in = garbage out.  If you start with flakey or false data, you’ll get flakey and false results out of the computer.

Then, there’s the process of creating the model itself.  If the programmer has an “agenda”, he may design the model to minimize the affect of one input and exaggerate the effect of another input when building his algorithms.   

Thus, the output of the model can be made to pretty much do anything he wants it to do, especially if its results can’t be tested in the real world for 100 years.

So in the case of the “Global Warming” models used by the United Nations IPCC political policy group, raw temperature data inputs must be very accurate indeed.  Honesty and data integrity is critical here.

Unfortunately, the data sets used by all 5 of the various models came from the same basic sources.  First, NASA’s temperature-measuring satellites show that average earth temperatures have been constant or dropping over their 40 year history except for an anomaly over part of the North Atlantic which showed the temperatures rising.  

Earth surface temperatures have also been measured by the US Weather Bureau (now NOAA) for nearly 150 years.  Relying upon thousands of thermometers mounted in white boxes placed on stilts in the countryside, these too showed temperatures going up.  

Other world-wide temperature readings were also collected, including data from the UK’s MET Weather Office, founded in 1854 to provide information for sailors.  The combined data was turned over to the prestigious Climate Research Unit of Britain’s East Anglia University which created a master temperature database.  It’s Director, Philip Jones wound up as the key IPCC expert on temperature change.  

This data was used to program the original models which immediately predicted that the Earth would undergo dramatic global warming – starting as soon as 1999 and jumping upwards by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit.  Melting ice caps, flooding coastal cities, and mass starvation made instant newspaper headlines.

Now it’s all gone so horribly wrong.  First, NASA discovered that some of its data were “accidently” ignored by faulty computer programming, and when fixed, its satellites showed no global temperature changes were occurring.  

Then,  independent researchers discovered that most of NOAA’s white temperature boxes had been repainted off-white back in the 80’s by a contractor.  (Off-white paint absorbs more heat from the sun’s rays).  Worse, the majority were now sitting on top of concrete pads, in parking lots near car tail pipes, and by fire department air conditioning exhaust vents.

Many of the few stations still located in the countryside had also been retrofitted with battery-powered remote transmitters to feed back via telemetry the temperature readings.  Unfortunately, these same heat-generating transmitters were mounted inside the waterproof boxes adjacent to the thermometers.

The CRU took the raw temperature data and combined it, making “corrections” to fix some inconsistencies among the data sets.  This “adjusted data” was provided to the Global Warming models and the IPCC.

Then Climategate hit.  

Last week, a whistle-blower insider the CRU “hacked” into the CRU’s non-public databases, and posted the results on a Russian server (thanks Russia!).  These included thousands of “smoking gun” e-mails in which the researchers, including “global warming scientists” from around the world admitted that the data and computer models were flawed.  In fact, outright lies.  And they were trying to cover up their tracks.

One insider, Kevin Trenberth, is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado.  He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.  So, he shares that Nobel Prize with Al Gore.  Trenberth e-mailed his global colleagues: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Gosh.  The data inputs don’t tell us what we want them to.   Therefore, we can’t force our models to give us the right output answers we want to get.

Worse, outside demands had been made to CRU under the UK’s tough Freedom of Information Act to turn over the raw data set and programming notes used to concoct the Global Warming models.   

What to do?  Under legal pressure to provide the raw data, the solution became obvious.

Tell the truth!

CRU Director Jones quickly emailed colleagues including Michael E. Mann at Penn State University.  Mann, as you recall, was the character who cooked up the infamous “hockey stick” chart showing run-away global warming.  

Unfortunately, when researchers finally twisted Mann’s arm to provide the computer program he wrote, it turns out that his algorithm will smartly find a hockey stick formation in any data set of 8000 or more.  Even the New York City telephone book will do nicely!  Now discredited, Mann’s hockey stick was the principal basis for the UN’s first IPCC alarmist report back in the 90’s.  

Phil Jones urgently wrote to Mann: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report on global temperatures]?”   

Responding to the legal requirement to deliver the raw temperature data files, Jones emailed Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amhurst and Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona; “Don’t any of you there tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”, thereby legally implicating all of them in a global cover-up.

In another email, fellow CRU researcher Tim Osborn observed to Director Jones that the data set can be manipulated to hide the now-observed cooling trends by simply truncating the numbers.  Jones emailed back cautioning Osborn not to show the “before and after data sets” to anyone, least the global warming skeptics get their hands on them.

CRU Director Jones has now announced that the underlying raw temperature data set, the priceless “crown jewels” of the Global Warming scientists, has apparently gone missing, and this government data has probably been “inadvertently” destroyed.  

But he promises that he will finally release the massaged “adjusted data set” manipulated by the CRU over the years.  Cries of “just trust us” are now being uttered by these esteemed researchers.  

Hmmm.  One remembers other so-called science frauds:  announced cloning of human beings, free perpetual energy machines.  You can find lots of them in the pages of the supermarket tabloids – along with pictures of grey-headed aliens and new sightings of Elvis.  But should you believe them too?

It is a criminal offense under the UK Freedom of Information Act to suppress, hide or destroy data.  It is a criminal offense to delete emails, ask others to cover up and hide the data demanded.  Phil Jones – and his co-conspirators throughout the world – could potentially be prosecuted and wind up in a British prison.  And the UK has an extradition treaty with the US.  

This should be a warning to all the Global Warming researchers, many of whom have written popular money-making books on the subject.  Hire a good criminal attorney now, and don’t delete any of those dodgy data and notes you have in your files.  Isn’t it better for your professional careers to be destroyed than to go to prison?

In particular, the White House Director of Science and Technology Policy, and former Al Gore global warming advisor, Dr. John P. Holdren is knee-deep in the thousands of CRU emails exposed to the public.  

An original advocate of UN “planetary regime” global government power, Holdren’s 1977 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, set the tone for future Global Warming fanatics.  In it, he calls for compulsory abortion and mass sterilization to control the world’s population, to be enforced by UN police and army.  

Notice in all of this, we’ve not even challenged the accuracy of the models themselves.  That would be a waste of time.  These “models”, arguably the world’s most important, didn’t even predict the past 11 years of falling temperatures that NASA now admits to.  Why should we expect these computer programs to be accurate in predicting temperatures 100 years in the future?

The lesson in all of this: even science, hard science at that, can be hijacked when politics and big government grants from progressive politicians have paid for “made as instructed” research reports.  

When you add in third-world countries looking for more easy money from rich guilt-ridden Western societies, the corruption becomes toxic.  

Thankfully, thousands of other real climate researchers will have none of this fraud.  They have been speaking out with clear and measured voices for many years.

Garbage in = Garbage Out.  And trillions of dollars of our own money is at stake.